The Glava of Norway

Today the Glava Tour of Norway begins, a five stage tour around the Eastern part of Norway. The race builds on Ringerike GP, a UCI race several big stars have entered over the years, usually in the beginning of their pro career.

Glava - the main sponsor
Many of you are probably familiar woth much of the work being layed down to organise such an event. Many sponsors contribute in different ways, local corporate organisations use the event to marketing themselves both locally and perhaps trying to be recognised internationally as well. So what kind of company is Glava?

Glava is a Norwegian industrial company who "developes and produce market insulation materials and other products."  Using the slogan "Good insulation is envirmonmental protection”, GLAVA ® have a broad range of products for building insulation. The main product is glasswool which is widely recognised as the leading insulation in the world. Almost every house in Norway has these materials, yellow matts are roled out in the walls and on ceilings.The company also have other materials and experiments with differents foams.

GLAVA ® insulation for houses

Glava is one of the companies that supports cross country skiing and cycling the recent years, something marketing manager Øystein Kvam highlighted recently. The race director of Glava tour of Norway is Birger Hungerholdt. Ring a bell? Hungerholdt is Edvald Boasson Hagen's manager and he has been a key player in making the Glava tour what is is. As Edvald Boasson Hagen said to the local newspaper in Lillehammer today, "I'm not sure if stage 4 is buildt spesificly to me, but I guess Birger had me in his thoughts". But as Edvald discovered during his recon of the climbs, they are tougher than he expected. Although the race pass by Edvald's childhood home, not once but twice.

Read more about Glava on their website here.

Summary
The Glava tour is a huge race for Norway and is a leap in the right direction for cycling in Norway. The sport has been through a remarkable development with pros like Arvesen, Hushovd and now Boasson Hagen and Kristoff too are leading the way.
Hopefully you know what kind of company Glava is, tune in to watch the game, nothing is written in stone and I expect a fight all the way for the overall win.

Glava Tour of Norway's official website is here. 

Birger Hungerholdt - race director and EBH's manager.

 

AIGCP vs UCI - why confidence matters

JV talking to the press

photo downloaded here

Yesterday we saw the AIGCP (Association des Groupes Cyclists Professionels) has no confidence in the UCI leadership. AIGCP held a meeting in Paris on Friday, voting on different key subjects. The AIGCP is taking care of the pro teams interests and it not a small thing they are coming out like this in public.

Now, many would say that this is nothing new and it is not getting us anywhere since the UCI don't care what the teams think anyway. I beg to differ. This is a new twist to the ongoing "battle" between pro teams and the UCI. The AIGCP is an organisation which depends highly on who's leading it. Jonathan Vaughters is currently the president of the AIGCP and has been in fights with the UCI over several issues the last years. Remember the radio ban?

What is it about
I see this as a two-fold battle. Firstly it is about power. The AIGCP stated in a release to cyclingnews that the AIGCP is under-represented in the decision-making process pertinent to the sport of professional cycling. The AIGCP has tried to be more influential in pro cycling for a decade, gaining more influence could be a good thing but this is also about money, lots of money.

As AIGCP stated in that release, they represent 2000 employees and 321 million euros per year. They want a fair and equal say. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, although it isn't crystal clear to me exactly what the AIGCP want to do when/if they got it. Television revenues are important because the financial possibilities when it comes to attract sponsors has never been so hard. Cycling teams are mostly being run by former riders and it could be difficult to deal with the business aspect of managing a team. After all, there is nothing indicating that being a world class athlete makes you a world class manager. This is known as the Peter principle.

Being able to decide more of the structure of the World Tour is something I feel the teams should be able to do. After all, their sponsors are interested in getting their ROI, the team has a certain amount of riders and staff and do not want to travel the world on tights budgets and time schedules. Should teams make money or get their budget in zero?

Summary
To be able to decide more of the structure of the WT is something I feel the teams should be granted, as well as getting a fair share of the televsion revenues. However, I think the AIGCP could be more open to expressing what their intentions are beyond these matters, as they criticize the UCI for being "secretive" and closed.

Interview with the Overlord himself - Not Pat McQuaid

Pedaling the road has for a very long time enjoyed the satirical comments from @UCI_Overlord, who tweets about the cycling community and "information" from Pat McQuaid and UCI in particular. We were so lucky to be able to interview him the other day. The interview had to be made by mail due to his tight schedule and travels all over the world... In addition to this, the true identity of the Overlord needs to be kept a secret, so mail was the solution we landed on.

As mentioned, I have long been a fan. In my opinion, the Overlord combines humour with deep insight of both cycling in general and the UCI. I'm not all that enthustiastic of every satirical account which seems to be all over twitter these days, but the Overlord manages to balance humour with knowlegde, a powerful combination.

So here it is, your chance to get to know a bit more abour the person behind the account, what made him do this and what does he say about the response.

The Overlord himself - no wait, it's Pat McQuaid.

PDR: Good morning Mr. UCI_Overlord, how has your day started so far? 

UCI_O: It's been a busy day. I begin the day catching up on what I missed in other time zones, respond to emails, see what is upcoming for the day, before I settle into a typical doppio espresso and breakfast. This is followed by orienting my staff for the "real person" job for the day's activities. 

PDR: You started your account some months ago, coming from nowhere. What made you open the account and why did you choose Pat McQuaid?

UCI_O: That is a very interesting question. I began on twitter upon a recommendation from a friend for another venture late last year, after have success with that venture on facebook. I'm an avid cyclist, and a staunch bicycling advocate in my local community, so I began with a personal account with that aim for raising awareness for our area when it comes to cycling advocacy. I linked up with a few fellow avid cyclists/humourists (Particularily @dwuori, @TDFLanterne, @velocentric, & @cycleboredom) with whom I shared a similar voice. After a background in journalism in my younger years, which I turned my back on for greater monetary gain, twitter gave me the confidence to begin blogging. The blogs found an audience and soon it became apparent that my focus was on the fractious approach to organized cycling -- almost hackneyed, if you will.

I've always had an ethos that supports the David versus the Goliath. I cheer for the underdog, and I think reading about Graeme Obree's experiences with the UCI, and watching the film based upon his life struck a nerve. This, along with the current political climate and the exposure of corporate/governmental corruption by Wikileaks, spoke to me.

I had this conversation, longer form, one night, with the individuals previously mentioned. In fact, one in particular, who will remain nameless, basically goaded me into using the satirical personification of Pat McQuaid as the appropriate vehicle. Frankly, I'm not one to back down from a dare, so it was born. Based upon my research for numerous other cycling related written projects, I had a fairly good grasp on cycling politics and the personality that McQuaid has. McQuaid's tendency for colourful quotations, rooted in his firm belief that his opinion is the "correct" stance for all, in relation to cycling, was, in a word, breathtaking. I couldn't pass it up.

PDR: The response you've got has been tremendous. I remember in the very beginning, people were, at least I was, very curious and somewhat sceptical to this satire account. You quickly won everybody over. What does this tell you? In addition to this, what is it you enjoy the most and least about being the Overlord?

   

UCI_O: I've been somewhat overwhelmed and humbled by the response. I think my secret has been the fact that I spend the time to gain the knowledge about the intricacies of the UCI and many of the national federations, plus the Pro Peloton component. I've also spent many years studying the sport via the internet and also in print. So, I think what separates this account from others is that I have some meat behind the potatoes, so to speak. This also means that there is never repetition from day-to-day; I try to be unique in the approach, just like a "real person" would have. So, you're not hearing the same thing over and over again. There is some repetition, for continuity sake.

What this all tells me is that if an account like this has some small popularity, then we have issues in the sport overall. If the sport was healthy, thriving, inclusive and collaborative, I'd be out of this job. And happily so.

What do I like the most? Interacting with people who have a passion for this sport, but not necessarily from the same bag of experiences and historics that I bring. It gives me an opportunity to grow my knowledge by this interaction. I've made some wonderful friends through this, and I hope to meet many of them in person soon -- that has been the best by-product.

Least? Those with thin skins, who take themselves too seriously to have time to stop and laugh at the ridiculous nature of where we are at overall. Those are the ones that I end up going after with vigour, so I guess in some respects, it's given me the continued discipline of trying to turn things I like the least into a positive. That's a tough question, because I really don't find anything that I like the least, so-to-speak.

PDR: Hmm, can't please everyone I guess. Have you heard anything from the UCI or any other governing body in regards to you setting up the account? Perhaps any responses from anyone you will share with the readers?

   

UCI_O: It's been very entertaining. I received a direct message from the UCI on day 2 of the account telling me to stop. I responded in a very methodical way, based on the fact that McQuaid is a public figure. I've received emails of support for the account from those actually working for the UCI. There was a journalist who asked McQuaid on the start line of Paris-Roubaix directly about the account, and he responded that he'd looked at it a few times, that's the world we live in, and something about it being rubbish. I directly then added the rubbish part to the profile description. I've interacted with a few of his family members; in fact, one of his brothers has warmed up some, based on the a few recent tweets.

Many governing body representatives follow this account, and many folks have found empathy in following this account. Some have actually tweeted his whereabouts ahead of time, which has allowed me some fun in sharing my spin on real life situations. For example, I remember having fun during his appearance at a SportAccord function in London.

PDR: So Pat himself is well aware of this account's excistence? How fun this must be to you. You are obviously very into cycling and you have much knowledge about the PRO peloton and the UCI. What is it about cycling you enjoy and what is cycling's biggest threat in your opinion?

 

UCI_O: I've been involved in cycling in a variety of capacities, roles, and participation for the better part of 20+ years. Plus, I'm continually reading and absorbing information from a variety of sources. It's important to be knowledgeable and effective over a long term when it comes to satirical parodies, otherwise your shelf life is very short. I enjoy cycling because it is the one sport you can do on your own, do in a group, and feel connected to your surroundings directly. I thrive on the pain associated with riding, and I have a last man standing attitude in most things, which is a beneficial trait for this sport.

Cycling's biggest threat is a never-ending bureaucratic growth that threatens to choke the life and creativity out of cycling. The UCI is one such example, as absolute power corrupts absolutely. The continued sophistication of the masses due to informational technologies, I believe the need for this style of organization is dated and outmoded. In fact, I might say that the bureaucracy could be partially responsible for the proliferation of doping opportunities, but that is for another time.

PDR: I see, wonder if the florishness of bureaucracy in sport, reach it's peak soon.

What future plan(s) do you have with the account, what is the next step?

UCI_O: That is under lock and key. Ha! sorry. Keep reading to find out what's next.

PDR: Thank you for the interview Overlord, back to never ending meetings and other important business I guess? Anything you would like to share with the cycling community?

UCI_O: Absolutely. The life of a faux character never ends and is never dull. Onward to the next snarkfest....

Never be afraid to make that first big step, and the small steps forward afterwards, you never know where that path may lead, and despite its potential scariness, the journey is exhilarating! 

Something tells me we have not heard the last from the Overlord....


You can find the Overlord not only on twitter, but also every Friday for his weekly column for stella gents at www.flammecast.com. And be sure to check out the interaction between @Flammecast and the @UCI_Overlord on twitter.

The UCI list - just a list

Today the French newspaper L’Equipe present an article that says the UCI had a list over riders who had unusual high values before the tour in 2010.

The reporter behind the story is the famous Damien Ressiot, the French journo who had the famous headlines back in 2005 stating: Le mesonge Armstrong – Armstrong’s lie. According to journalist Anders K. Christiansen, Ressiot proved some good investigation skills back then, even getting Lance Armstrong’s approval for getting Armstrong’s permission to see his number code used by the UCI in dpoing tests, by saying he wanted to help Armstrong get rid of rumours.

What does the list mean

Some have raised questions regarding the fact that the UCI has a list, others don’t mind. My personal opinion is that the list need to be shared with WADA, unless no point in havig one. The L’Equipe article says AMA (WADA-AMA) agents have had access to the list. Upon giving riders a number between 0-10, where 10 is the highest, based on their biological passport and the values they tested just before the start of the tour.

The good and at the same time sad news is that the list doesn’t necessarily mean much. All those involved with sport, at least endurance sport, knows that the variations within blood level is high among the athletes. The list is merely an overview over different riders’ bio passport on the 1^st of July 2010. 

Some have criticized the biological passport and says that there are circumstances where the hemoglobin level is high, both naturally and because of an illness.

The questions I’m left with are many, and the UCI have some explaining to do. Some of my questions are:

• Is there such a list today? Rumours in the cycling world have indicated this and the work of Ressiot further adds fuel to that fire.
• Who is responsible for the evaluation and analysis?
• Is it WADA-AMA or the UCI who has the responsibility for putting that list together?
• Who decides which rider to be tested?
• Do the UCI cooperate with the different nations’ drug agencies to test riders with suspicious values in hemoglobin and hematocrit?

How the UCI can meet tomorrow - part I

Much has been said about the UCI the last years and the debate continues on Twitter. People say when it comes to greediness, unclear doping-rules and one-sided judgement of riders, the UCI is at the very top. Some people treat issues involving UCI like conspiracy theorists do, I am not in that league.
Mind you, I will not speak in the favour of UCI either, because I believe many things need to be clarified, and I believe UCI could benefit by doing so to some matters.

I will focus on some aspects I think the UCI could benefit from. I've sent a mail to the UCI and UEC in order for them to clarify some questions I had but I have not received an answer by time this is "in the print".

Short story 
The UCI was founded in 1900 and is the world governing body for cycling. The headquarters is located in Aigle, Switzerland. They provide the debated team points ranking system, issue licences to teams and is supposed to enforce disciplinary rules, like they did towards Bruyneel after the last stage in this year's Tour, where Radioshack used other jerseys than they started the race with. Disciplinary rules also involves doping i.e. how they handle Contador's case now. They are involved with the three Grand Tours, many of the classics and they are trying to expand cycling to the world by their concept UCI Continental Circuits.

Obviously dealing with enormous amount of money and having the power they have, the UCI is vulnerable to criticism and need to be professional in every way.

To complicate or add further depth to the organisational structure (your choice), national federations form different continental confederations under UCI. An example is L'Union Européene de Cyclisme (UEC) which have their own statutes.
For example states article 3 point 1. d) that "The UEC supports the UCi in all aspects of cycling". Article 4, point 3 states that "The members of UEC agree to recognise and safeguard the statutes and regulations of the UCI. They will not establish nor recognise statutes or regulations which are contrary to the statuses or regulations of the UCI or UEC".
Looks like that someone has a tight grip there, doesn't it?

Back in the day the UCI was founded over some political disagreement involving Great Britain and the ruling organisation back then, the International Cycling Association, was "overthrown". So it is possible to do what the UCI did in 1900 if people for some reason do not agree with the UCI, this violates article 4 point 3 I guess. But of course, times were different back then.

In 1965 the UCI created two subsidiary bodies; the Fédération Internationale Amateur de Cyclisme (FIAC) and Fédération Internationale de Cyclisme Professionale (FICP).

History repeats itself?
There is no doubt that cycling need a governing body. Every sport and association will need to be govern, there has to be certain rules and disciplinary action taken if the rules are broken. Fine, so far so good.
Who possess the real power in cycling? The UCI and Pat McQuaid? ASO and other race organisers? The pro teams and the Team Managers? For the time being, I find that hard to answer. But I see that there are many chefs, and that can lead to blurry borderlines, frustration and "turf wars" leading the sport in the wrong direction. From my perspective I somehow feel the UCI to want more power, to control more of cycling than they do today. I remember seeing the "turf war" between Hein Verbruggen and Clerc as well as Verbruggen vs. Leblanc some years ago and some of that is still ongoing today.

@propulse said on twitter a couple of days ago that UCI should recreate FIAC because many cyclists have trouble finding a pro team to work for. If you see this in comparison to what 39teeth wrote about the future in road cycling, this can actually be a good idea. The Gran Fondos are getting bigger, cycling is on the rise in many countries. FIAC made sure amateurs raced against amateurs while FICP took care of the pros.

Is the UCI we see today too big? An organisation which is big moves slowly and might neglect the very base of it's followers namely teams and riders. An organisation which is too big see progress at something disturbing and see other organisations as threats. An organisation which is too big wants more power and holds on to it's power for as long as it can.

What kind of leader will member states approve and elect in the future? Maybe an important organisation like the UCI can move forward instead of backward and really step up to the challenges coming. Prudhomme said this some years ago to L'equipe, it is not linked to the UCI but the lesson is the same: "For me, the fundamental problem is one of image. We must get rid of suspicion, that's the most important thing." 

UCI headquarters in Aigle

Next blog post in this series: Funding and election.